Recent research on the effects of processing instruction (PI) have incorporated online research methods in order to demonstrate that PI has effects on cognitive processing behaviors as well as on accuracy (e.g. Lee & Doherty, 2019a). The present study uses self-paced reading and a moving windows technique to examine the effects of PI on second language (L2) learners’ processing of Spanish active and passive sentences to explore the effects of PI on instructed second language acquisition. One group received PI but the Control group did not. Between group comparisons on passive sentences showed changes in performance for the PI group but not the Control group with the PI group gaining in accuracy and processing speed, specifically faster response times to select the correct picture and faster reading time on passive verb forms. Within group analyses showed changes in the PI group’s performance on all dependent variables at the immediate posttest and a subsequent decline in performance at the delayed posttest (8 weeks later). We discuss the implications of our results and treatment format for classroom and hybridized instruction.
AndersonL.LordG. (2018). Ten years after the MLA report: What has changed in foreign language departments?ADFL Bulletin, 44, 116–120.
2.
BenatiA. (2013). Age and the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English passive constructions among school children and adult native speakers of Turkish. In LeeJ.F.BenatiA. (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 83–104). Sheffield: Equinox.
3.
BenatiA.G. (2015). The effects of re-exposure to instruction and the use of discourse-level interpretation tasks on the processing instruction and the Japanese passive. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 127–150.
4.
BenatiA.G.LeeJ.F. (2007). Processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts. London: Equinox.
5.
BenatiA.LeeJ.HikimaN. (2010). Exploring the effects of processing instruction on discourse-level interpretation tasks with the Japanese passive construction. In BenatiA.LeeJ.F. (Eds.), Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 148–177). London: Continuum.
6.
BorerH.WexlerK. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In RoeperT.WilliamsE. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 123–172). Dordrecht: Reidel.
7.
CollentineJ. (2004). Commentary: Where processing research has been and where it should be going. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 169–182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
8.
CulmanH.HenryN.VanPattenB. (2009). The role of explicit information in instructed SLA: An on-line study with processing instruction and German accusative case inflections. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 42, 19–31.
9.
EllisR. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
10.
FernándezC. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.
11.
FerreiraF.CliftonC. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
12.
Gurzynski-WeissL. (2013). Instructor characteristics and classroom-based second language acquisition of Spanish. In GeeslinK. (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 530–546). Malsen, PA: Wiley-Blackwell.
13.
Gurzynski-WeissL. (2017). L2 instructor individual characteristics. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York: Routledge.
14.
HenryN. (2015). Syntactic processing strategies, cue interaction, and the effects of instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German. Unpublished PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA.
15.
HikimaN. (2011). The effects of processing instruction and re-exposure on interpretation discourse level tasks: The case of Japanese passive forms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Greenwich, Greenwich, UK.
16.
HyamsN.NtelitheosD.ManorohantaC. (2006). Acquisition of the Malagasy voicing system: Implications for the adult grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 1049–1092.
17.
IndrarathneB. (2019). Enhancement, attention, and awareness: An eye-tracking study of English syntax. In LeowR. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 331–345). New York: Routledge.
18.
IssaB. (2019). Examining the relationships among attentional allocation, working memory, and second language development: An eye-tracking study. In LeowR. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 464–479). New York: Routledge.
19.
IssaB.Morgan-ShortK. (2018). Effects of external and internal attentional manipulations on second language grammar development: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 389–417.
20.
IssaB.Morgan-ShortK.VillegasB.RaneyG. (2015). An eye-tracking study on the role of attention and its relationship with motivation. In RobertsL.McManusK.VanekN.TrenkicD. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 15 (pp. 114–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21.
JacksonC.N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.
22.
JacksonC.N. (2010). The processing of subject-object ambiguities by English and Dutch L2 learners of German. In VanPattenB.JegerskiJ. (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 207–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
LeeJ.F. (2015). Processing instruction on the Spanish passive with transfer-of-training effects to anaphoric and cataphoric reference contexts. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 111–126.
24.
LeeH.ChoiH. (2019). Cognitive load, attention, and incidental vocabulary learning: An eye-tracking study. In R.Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 286–301). New York: Routledge.
25.
LeeJ.F.DohertyS. (2019a). Native and nonnative processing of active and passive sentences: The effects of processing instruction on the allocation of visual attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 853–879.
26.
LeeJ.F.DohertyS. (2019b). The effects of implicit positive and negative feedback on processing subsequent target linguistic items: An eye-tracking study. In LeowR. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 363–376). New York: Routledge.
27.
LeowR.P. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2 development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 49–68.
28.
LeowR.P. (2015). Explicit learning in the classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.
29.
LeowR.P.CerezoL. (2016). Deconstructing the ‘I’ and ‘SLA’ in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 43–63.
30.
LightbownP.M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In HanZ. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
31.
LongM. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference?TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
32.
MalovrhP.A.MorenoN. (2018). Meeting the demands of globalization: One goal of ISLA research. In MalovrhP.A.BenatiA. (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 199–218). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
33.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH.K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.
34.
McManusK.MarsdenE. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.
35.
McManusK.MarsdenE. (2018). Online and offline effects of L1 practice in L2 grammar learning: A partial replication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 459–475.
36.
McManusK.MarsdenE. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 205–234.
37.
MorenoN. (2014). The place of individual differences in foreign language teaching assistants’ education programs. In SanzC.B.Lado (Eds.), Individual differences, L2 development and language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 128–149). Boston, MA: Heinle.
38.
PiennemanM. (1998). Language processing and language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39.
PiennemanM. (2007). Processability theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 141–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
SanzC. (2004). Computer-delivered implicit and explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 245–259). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
SlobinD. (1966). Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 876–881.
42.
SlobinD.BeverT. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 78, 123–164.
43.
StromswoldK. (2006). Why children understand and misunderstand sentences: An eye-tracking study of passive sentences. Technical Report TR-85. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
44.
UludagO.VanPattenB. (2012). The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. IRAL, 50, 189–212.
45.
VanPattenB. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
46.
VanPattenB. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47.
VanPattenB. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
VanPattenB.CadiernoT. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.
49.
VanPattenB.OikennonS. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.
50.
VanPattenB.WongW. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
VanPattenB.CollopyE.PriceJ.BorstS.QualinA. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. Modern Language Journal, 97, 504–525.
52.
WangK. (2010). The acquisition of English passive constructions by Mandarin speakers: A developmental perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
53.
WhiteJ.P. (2015). Primary and secondary effects of processing instruction on Spanish clitic pronouns. IRAL, 53, 151–179.
54.
WhiteJ.P.DeMilA.J.RiceM. (2015). Traditional and processing instruction: German dative definite articles. German as a Foreign Language, 16, 1–26.
55.
WongW.ItoK. (2017). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 241–268.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
